ANON EYES ON
Are there any physics anons here? Specifically Cosmologyfags?
I am looking into "The Principle" as evidence for Geocentrism, and find it highly compelling. Would be a HUGE red pill if true. The fact that there are no experiments proving the earth moves, and experiments that seem to prove the earth doesn't, this is something anons should really dig on.
Well this is the point that the guy is making. If you watch the video, he demonstrates that the two cases are indistinguishable. In fact, that's exactly what general relativity says! That the reference frame can be placed anywhere.
However when you consider the Michelson-Morely experiment, that showed a small, non-zero movement of the ether with respect to translation (i.e., the earth orbiting the sun), however the Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment showed an almost 100% of the expected value of the rotation (i.e., the earth spinning on its axis), as expected. When you consider these two experiments together, the first conclusion is the earth is not moving, and the universe is rotating around the earth at the center of mass. Why?
Because if the earth is rotating (and we can detect it as in the Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment), and it is not revolving (as we didn't detect int he Michelson-Morely experiment), then the earth cannot be revolving around the sun. Why? Because if it was revolving around the sun, due to the tilt of the axis of the earth, you would not get seasonal affects, which we both agree we can observe. Therefore, the simplest conclusion to draw is the earth is the center of the universe, and the universe is rotating around us.
There is a lot more on this. The movie "Journey to the Center of the Universe" is 4.5 hours of scientific data, quotes from Einstein, Hubble, Poincare, Hawking, Michelson, etc., that demonstrate that there really is no experiment that has been done that demonstrates the earth is moving.
So while I understand your point, I highly suggest, before you dismiss this claim, that you look into the phenomenon more deeply. Because I am not claiming anything different about the physics of the orbits of the bodies of the universe, I'm affirming it. The claim being made is that the earth is at the center. By general relativity (as is commonly accepted), the systems are completely equivalent from the standpoint of what one would expect to observe from the motions of the planets as you state.
TL;DR, that objection was covered, and answered. The Geocentric model predicts the same orbit as the Heliocentric (or no-center, as is common nowadays) model predicts.
That's exactly the point that Sungenis would make. He's woke AF on most things (he was basically excommunicated for saying jews aren't God's chosen people…).
I recommend looking into the two documentaries (specifically "The Principle" is good for normies, and "The Journey to the Center of the Universe" for people who want to learn more/are more science literate). Really eye opening, and demonstrates exactly what you're saying.
>the tilt is the cause for the seasons. You need a tilt to get seasons. At the poles there are parts of winter/summer where the sun does not set for several days which is further evidence of the axial tilt.
If the Heliocentrism/Copernican/non-stationary earth thesis is true, you do need the tilt to get the seasons. I agree. However if the earth is rotating, but not revolving, you will not get seasons. That's the point of the dichotomy. That's why the pic you posted doesn't work. Because it assumes the earth is revolving around the sun, which is not what the Michelson-Morely experiment shows. However it does show rotation (the MIchelson-Gale-Pearson experiment), and that's a problem for the heliocentric model.
In the Geocentrism model, where the universe is rotating, and the earth is not moving, then you would get seasons because of the procession of the rotation (which is gone into more detail in the materials). Just FYI on why the empirical evidence demonstrates that the Geocentrism model has seasons with the observed data, but the heliocentric model does not (which is a function of the way the rotation of the universe around the earth works in the geocentrism model).
>I will watch it. However this is a similar argument used for solipsism. Technically the case of nothing existing except yourself, with illusions/dream of the outside world, and the case of reality existing and effecting you and everyone else, are indistinguishable.
I see what you're saying, but that's not what I meant, or how I meant it. I just mean in general relativity, one can set anything as the reference frame for the coordinate system. From that reference frame, one can compute the motion of whatever you want. The motion will be identical regardless of what reference frame you choose, the only difference being what things are labeled as, and not the motion itself (i.e., if you removed any notion of axes/reference, you would not be able to tell which situation you were in on the inside). That's just a result of General Relativity, and accepted by all modern physicists I know.
>The case of earth at the center and a "zig-zaggy" force moving the planets and sun around, requires fewer assumptions than the heliocentric model.
Do you see how the Geocentric model can make the exact same predictions? That is, the motion isn't "ziggy-zaggy", it's exactly the same as the heliocentric model, it's just that the earth is at the center of mass of the universe, and therefore everything is rotating around it.
It's truly a mind fuck. I get why you're skeptical. I'm still skeptical. I just want to let you know that I asked a lot of the same questions, and was shocked by the simplicity of the answers. It really does change everything if it's true, so dig for yourself. Best of luck anon.
>I'll definitely check out the film and lecture you mentioned. Here's some additional food for thought that i'm not educated enough about to comment on:
Thanks. Will take a look.
>seems unlikely to be THE center, given the scale of the Universe, to me personally.)
Agree. And if it is, then what does that do for your probability that Christianity is true?
Given that I think Christianity is true, (You) have my answer.
>By orbit i mean that they are free-falling "around" the center of gravity, affected by gravity. It is just a semantic difference to say the earth is going around the sun, vs the Sun is going around the earth from a less "elegant" general relativity reference frame. "Elegant" is subjective but I think an ellipse is more elegant and less "needlessly" complex than a curvy roulette spirograph alternative.
Yes exactly! And the theory of Geocentrism is that the earth is the Center of Mass of the Universe. That's the theory that Sungenis is presenting, at least. And one I find plausible based on the evidence displayed.
>I am just a bit confused on how rotation+orbit+tilt can't result in seasons. It is the exact same thing as stationary+procession+rotation but simply from a different perspective
Ok, sorry, I was not clear. A rotation + revolution + tilt CAN create seasons. You are absolutely correct.
My point is that the Michelson-Morely experiment shows there is no revolution, however the Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment shows there IS rotation.
Thus my point is, based on evidence, we have rotation with no revolution. In that scenario, you cannot have seasons.
If revolution is true, however, you can.
Does that answer your question?
>Yeah, definitely a mind fuck. But I think it boils down to the fact that The Center can be arbitrarily defined in calculations with the same results regardless. Anything can be defined as stationary if it is defined as the center.
If it's defined as the center, yes. However evidence indicates the earth IS the center. As in, it IS the center of mass. In that case, the situation is very special, and different.